On August 9, a U.S. appeals court upheld a prior dismissal of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Vilsack case, in which the animal rights organization challenged the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s approval of “misleading labels” on poultry products.
The ALDF claimed an issue with the USDA for approving Perdue Farms’ “Fresh Line” poultry labels, which feature idyllic images of chickens and turkeys in open fields. The ALDF argued that these labels misled consumers into thinking the birds were raised outdoors, even though they were raised indoors — standard practice in modern poultry farming, where birds are protected from predators and harsh weather conditions.
The controversy began when the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service approved these labels for Perdue in 2018 and 2019. The ALDF argued that the USDA violated the Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Administrative Procedure Act and accused the federal agency failing to scrutinize the graphics on the labels. According to the ALDF, these images falsely implied a more humane method of animal husbandry, which they believed would deceive consumers.
In 2020, the ALDF demanded that the FSIS deny approval for any similar labels from Perdue, asserting that the images were deceptive. However, the FSIS rejected this demand, clarifying that images on packaging do not equate to labeling claims and, therefore, do not make the product’s label false or misleading.
In a letter to the ALDF reported that a representative from the Food Safety and Inspection Service, “asserted that the ‘photos, colors, and graphics used on packaging are not considered labeling claims.’ ”
Undeterred by this setback, the ALDF escalated the matter by filing a lawsuit against the USDA and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in 2021. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the ALDF and one of its members, Marie Mastracco, who claimed she was misled by the Perdue labels when buying Fresh Line chicken for her dog. The ALDF alleged that the USDA’s approval of these labels perpetuated misleading marketing, though their claims rested more on speculation than substance.
The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the ALDF lacked standing to sue. The court noted that Mastracco, now fully aware of the label’s nature, could not reasonably claim future harm from relying on it. Moreover, the court found the ALDF’s allegation that the USDA had a policy of neglecting label graphics to be unfounded and speculative, lacking any real evidence.
On August 9, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld this dismissal. The appeals court agreed that the ALDF failed to demonstrate any ongoing or imminent harm to its member due to the USDA’s actions. The ruling highlighted that any potential harm Mastracco might face in the future would be self-inflicted, given her knowledge of the situation.
Salisbury, Maryland-based Perdue is one of the largest chicken processors in the United States. It is family owned, with more than 20,000 employees and more than $8 billion in annual revenue. The Animal Legal Defense Fund is a California-based nonprofit with annual revenue north of $20 million.
»Related: Perdue Chicken’s new ad stirs distrust in consumer perception
